Four-home grey belt appeal wins as 1.86-year supply unlocks permission in principle

A grey belt appeal seeking permission in principle for up to four homes in West Lancashire has been allowed after an Inspector found the Green Belt site qualified as grey belt and the council could demonstrate only 1.86 years of housing land supply.

Appeal 6010014 concerned land at Heathey Lane, Shirdley Hill, Halsall. The council had refused the proposal over Green Belt impact and the loss of Grade 1 agricultural and peaty soil land, but Inspector N Unwin concluded that the scheme satisfied the August 2026 National Planning Policy Framework’s grey belt route.

The appellant also secured a partial award of costs. The Inspector found the council had failed to substantiate its Green Belt refusal by working through the specific national policy tests, although its separate case on agricultural and peaty soil land was not unreasonable.

Grey belt appeal turns on the new GB7 test

The grey belt appeal site is a modest open field beside Shirdley Hill. Because the application sought permission in principle, the decision was limited to location, land use and the amount of development. Detailed matters would only follow if technical details consent were later granted.

The Inspector found the land did not strongly contribute to the Green Belt purposes concerned with checking sprawl, preventing neighbouring towns merging or preserving the setting and special character of historic towns. Its small scale also meant four homes would not fundamentally undermine the purposes of the remaining Green Belt across the plan area.

A 1.86-year supply established unmet housing need

In the grey belt appeal, the Framework also required a demonstrable unmet need. West Lancashire confirmed that it could demonstrate only 1.86 years of deliverable housing land. The Inspector treated that as a considerable shortfall and found a demonstrable unmet need for housing.

The location test was satisfied too. Two bus stops close to the site provide public transport towards Southport, while cycling was considered a reasonable option. The proposal was not major development, so the Green Belt Golden Rules did not apply.

With the relevant GB7 requirements met, the scheme was not inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Planning Geek’s grey belt and Green Belt guide explains the current national tests.

Grade 1 land did not defeat the proposal

The council’s second objection concerned agricultural and peaty soil land. The appeal field was identified as Grade 1 agricultural land, normally within the best and most versatile category.

However, the Inspector looked beyond the classification. The site was narrow, modest in size, separated from larger surrounding fields by vegetation, buildings and an access track, and closely related to existing housing. On those facts she concluded it would be difficult to use productively and could not realistically be regarded as best and most versatile agricultural land.

Part of the site was also identified as peaty soil. The indicative layout showed the dwellings could avoid those areas, leaving closer assessment to the technical details stage.

Partial costs award exposes weak Green Belt reasoning

The separate costs decision in the grey belt appeal adds an important procedural point. The planning committee had refused the application contrary to officer advice. Members were entitled to do that, but they still needed evidence capable of supporting their judgement.

The Inspector found that the refusal notice and appeal statement did not assess the site’s contribution to each relevant Green Belt purpose and did not work through Policy GB7 1.g. Little evidence was offered to substantiate the Green Belt objection.

That was unreasonable behaviour and caused unnecessary appeal expense. A partial costs award was made for contesting the Green Belt refusal reason. No costs were awarded over the agricultural and peaty soil issue because the council had presented a reasoned case on that point.

Permission in principle is only the first stage

The appeal does not approve house designs, access engineering, drainage or landscaping. Permission in principle establishes only that residential development of up to four dwellings is acceptable in principle on this land.

A technical details application would still need to resolve the detailed planning matters. Residents had raised concerns including highways, parking, character, ecology, drainage and neighbouring amenity, but most fell outside the deliberately narrow scope of this stage.

The decision is nevertheless a useful early example of the August 2026 grey belt policies operating in a small housing appeal. A severe housing supply shortfall, limited contribution to Green Belt purposes and a sustainable location were enough to move the proposal through the national policy gateway.

For applicants, the decision also shows why a permission-in-principle case needs discipline. The temptation is to argue every technical matter at once, but the statutory stage is deliberately narrower. The strongest case here was about the principle of residential development, the site’s Green Belt function and the amount of housing proposed. Detailed design and infrastructure questions remain for the next stage.

Appeal 6010014 was allowed on 5th October 2026. The appeal was also accompanied by a separate costs decision. Planning Geek’s planning appeals guidance covers the wider process.